WRX vs Ducati Monster 620 - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

This is a discussion on WRX vs Ducati Monster 620 within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by WRX-ERROR Granted that can always be the case but other then short shifting I can't see him ...

  1. #16
    Registered User cyrilgrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by WRX-ERROR
    Granted that can always be the case but other then short shifting I can't see him messing anything up.. The bike doesn't have the power to raise the wheel anything past 2nd gear and even then you would have to feather then clutch to get it up.

    Maybe I'm just a bit salty cause the last time I posted about beating a GTP I got the same reaction.
    Top-gear roll-on, 50-70 mph: 5.89 sec

    That's a beautiful bike meant for good riding and good roads, but it's not a speed demon. Your encounter does not sound far fetched. He may not have been in the right gear (probable), or you might just be quick enough.
    Last edited by cyrilgrey; 06-15-2005 at 05:03 AM.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    84
    I looked at buying a ducati 620 but ended up buying a sv650. By no means is either bike a speed demon, but man, the ducati is a good looking bike. I guess anything is possible on the streets. For instance, A guy I know just bought a new Suzuki gsx600 and I beat hime pretty good from a roll with my sv650. That should not happen, he's just a newer rider and don't know the odds and ends yet.

  4. #18
    Registered User WRX-ERROR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Wilkes Barre, Pa
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by Lit Fuse
    I looked at buying a ducati 620 but ended up buying a sv650. By no means is either bike a speed demon, but man, the ducati is a good looking bike. I guess anything is possible on the streets. For instance, A guy I know just bought a new Suzuki gsx600 and I beat hime pretty good from a roll with my sv650. That should not happen, he's just a newer rider and don't know the odds and ends yet.
    Well the SV650 with it's V-Twin is nuts on tq.. Granted it shouldn't beat a R bike but if the rider is afraid to get on it you will win..

    And if you ask me sv650 > Monster 620..

  5. #19
    Registered User britishbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cantonment, FL
    Posts
    96
    The 620 makes that power (63) to the wheel. Over 100 hp per liter from a naturally asperated 2 valve aircooled twin. What does the blown 4 valve WRX get to the ground? 158? ha ha Not even 80hp per liter. You guys need to be careful at what you poke fun..( I know,Subaru leaves it up to the owners to get the rest...)

    Try a few more runs and see how they turn out. One run is not always a good indication of how things are. An SV twin (70hp) "beating" the Gix (100+ hp) is a good example, although it is hard to see how a rider can be that incompetent. Sheesh, from a roll at that... I guess another person got suckered into thinking a 100+ hp, sub 400 pound bike is a beginner bike: "Right hand throttle, left hand clutch... where are the brakes? Gee I hope no one pulls out in front of me until I can remember!" It is a 10 second vehicle that turns 1:27's at big Willow. It tops out north of 160. It has only 2 wheels. Lets learn to ride on that.

    That fastest 60 foot times I have seen for a stock bike are set by a pro, Ricky Gadson, at about 1.6-1.7 seconds, and he said it was very difficult to do, on tall geared and wheelie prone bikes set up for cornering. He was turning 10.3's on completely stock 600's, about 1/2 second quicker than the magazine times until then.

    Anyways, if you did almost beat a 620, it is not inconcieveable.

  6. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by britishbikes
    The 620 makes that power (63) to the wheel.

    that's a first....every time I've heard power specs on bikes they're been crank. It'd be nice if my r6 actually had 123whp

  7. #21
    Registered User ILikeMy2.5RS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Lowell, MA
    Posts
    660
    I'm going out on a limb here. When I looked at my roommates's bike, there really isn't much going from the transmission to the wheels, so that 63 hp is IMHO, pretty indicative of the whp on a bike. There should be very little drivetrain loss if any.

    As for the WRX hanging with the bike, look at the trap speeds. A Stage 2 WRX should hang with an STi which traps about 102-105mph. The bike traps at 104mph, so I don't see a problem with the WRX hanging from a roll. BTW, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

  8. #22
    Registered User scoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbus, Oh.
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by ILikeMy2.5RS
    I'm going out on a limb here. When I looked at my roommates's bike, there really isn't much going from the transmission to the wheels, so that 63 hp is IMHO, pretty indicative of the whp on a bike. There should be very little drivetrain loss if any.

    As for the WRX hanging with the bike, look at the trap speeds. A Stage 2 WRX should hang with an STi which traps about 102-105mph. The bike traps at 104mph, so I don't see a problem with the WRX hanging from a roll. BTW, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
    I posted a similar post a few weeks ago and got my a$$ handed to me buy practically the entire site. So trying to convince anyone on this particular site that any car can actually hang with a motorcycle is a lesson in futility. I for one believe you. I think to the contrary of the majority here that motorcycle v's car races from a roll are not as cut and dry as people think. As an automotive design engineer, I have been involved in numorous technical processes, and have studied mechanics for almost a decade now. I know a thing or two about aerodynamics, drivetrain technology, etc. and yet I posted that I hung with a late mode Yamaha R6 and got booo'd all over the place. But it happend......
    Motorcycles are very "dirty" aerodynamically. They a also torqueless high-rever's and ultimately have to fight harder to push through the atmosphere than most modern automobiles. Sure they have awesome power to wieght ratios, but there is a reason that pro motorcycle dragracers are slower than pro drag racer cars, and it is not power-to-weight ratios. It's aerodynamics. If pro drag motorcycles were as aerodynamic as pro stocker cars then they would probably push 4-3 second 1/4 miles where the cars push 6-7's. Aerodynamics play a very small roll from a dig and that is primarily why a motorcycle will destroy you from a dig. From a roll though things can (not always) change. It all depends on the driver/rider/gearing/and balls. After all it far easier to hammer on a nice comfortable accelerator pedal, than to run balls out on a crotch rocket. I mean even the craziest person has to think a little about death when flying so fast completely unprotected.
    My car looks just like this without the skirts and roof wing! Yeah baby!

  9. #23
    Registered User roninsoldier83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Centennial, CO
    Posts
    1
    wow, I guess you learn something new everyday. I had never conceived the problems bikes would have with aerodynamics, very interesting write-up. Also never knew Ducati made anything that only trapped at 104mph. 104mph trap speed..... on a bike.......

  10. #24
    Registered User britishbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cantonment, FL
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by ILikeMy2.5RS
    I'm going out on a limb here. When I looked at my roommates's bike, there really isn't much going from the transmission to the wheels, so that 63 hp is IMHO, pretty indicative of the whp on a bike. There should be very little drivetrain loss if any.

    As for the WRX hanging with the bike, look at the trap speeds. A Stage 2 WRX should hang with an STi which traps about 102-105mph. The bike traps at 104mph, so I don't see a problem with the WRX hanging from a roll. BTW, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

    Ok here are the Cycle world specs for the 2004 620. hp:58.6@8500 at the wheel. Bikes usually have about a 15-20% loss, so the 63 number was likely a wheel number for a different bike different day different dyno. (I seem to remember Ducati tweaked it a little for '05. Who knows) There can be a fair amount of variation here.

    The 1/4 mile time they got was 12.78, trapping at 102.98 mph. pretty similar to an STI or a hoppped up WRX.

    Here is one to laugh at. Top speed 118 mph. The same as an EX500 and 6mph slower than my GPS showed at the end of about 3 miles of straight in my 2.5. It just takes a lot less time to get there on the bike. So from a 115-124 mph roll, I guess the 2.5 would win every time. From my experience, if a car and bike are similar in the 1/4 with the bike being a little quicker, the bike gets out there pretty good at first, then slowly loses ground after about 60 mph, with the car being about 1 car length behind at the 1/4 mark. After that the car creeps by at about 110 mph or so, with the bike starting to hit the areo wall.

    If a Stage 2 can have an ET of 12.8 to the low 13's it is entirely beliveable it could keep up. A 620 is Ducati's attempt to compete with the SV650 and 500 Ninja. If you want to see if the rider is determined and willing to work on his launch try racing from a stop. The lead will go to whoever does the clutch/ throttle juggle the best. You will probably get to see how badly you leave him if he gets air under the front wheel, and how bad you get left if you get off boost trying to get rolling. Most of the race happens in the first second. It can be fun and really aggravating too. If one machine is way faster than the other it is not much of a race.

    To be fair to Subaru, the nature of the drivetrain sucks a lot of power. I think the motors have quite high volumetric efficiency. Just rev low to be easier to drive, to last longer and to keep production costs down. If my car was built to have a average piston velocity of over 4000 fpm like bikes, I probably couldn't afford it. But I can afford a little motor like that.

  11. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by britishbikes
    Bikes usually have about a 15-20% loss, so the 63 number was likely a wheel number for a different bike different day different dyno. (I seem to remember Ducati tweaked it a little for '05. Who knows) There can be a fair amount of variation here.
    03 r6 123 hp, dynos about 105 at the wheels.

    Quote Originally Posted by britishbikes
    A 620 is Ducati's attempt to compete with the SV650 and 500 Ninja.

    isn't that the other way around. the monster 600's have been around for ages. The ninja ex500 might be older, but kawasaki's naked street bike that everyone lumps in the same category is the zr-750

  12. #26
    Registered User britishbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cantonment, FL
    Posts
    96
    I guess you're right about the Duc, it still seems like a new model to me, but was introduced in 1994. But the way motorcycle people tend to think, a Ducati 600 is more like an EX500 and an SV650 than it is a 750 four of any year. Some people tend to like twins and singles for the same reasons that most of us like flat fours better than inline fours. It is hard to explain to people who don't know, and pointless to those who do, like trying to explain the blues or something.

    Where I used to work restoring old Triumphs and BSA's most of the customers also owned modern bikes, but I can't remember any of them having more than 3 cylinders. More than one had a Ducati, some had hogs, but no fours, almost all twins.

  13. #27
    Registered User scoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbus, Oh.
    Posts
    627
    Wow, looks like we have made some breakthroughs!
    My car looks just like this without the skirts and roof wing! Yeah baby!

  14. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    84
    Britishbikes, I have a friend who collects british bikes(BSA, Triumph, norton, so on) and currently picked up a prestige tt120 and then, although I will get the termonolgy wrong, a 120 east coast version and west coast version. They are currently on display at a local motorcycle museum in St. Louis that is doing a complete british bike show.

  15. #29
    Registered User britishbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cantonment, FL
    Posts
    96
    You got the terminology right, there is an east and west coast variant on some British bikes. I have not found much rhyme or reason to the variations, they are usually minor things, like the type of handlebar, gas tank size or "nutrack" used. Only a real buff could pick out the differences. The 120 in T120 was supposed to mean the top speed of the bike. They didn't say it meant when it was going downhill with a tailwind and drafting a Corvette with a sheet of plywood for a spoiler. The "T100" in the avatar would top out around 90. If you went that fast for long, something would start to crack like the oil tank mounts, or a headlight bulb would fail from the vibration, etc. Balancing the crank for high rpms helped some.

  16. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    the twin comment is right, I've never owned a twin sportbike (had several cruisers) but the sound of something like an rc51 with an exhaust screaming down the road while sounding like thunder, is awesome.

    I just don't like the ducati racing hype of how everyone thinks they're the fastest bikes around. The 999 dynoed at 133, while the new 1k japanese bikes are dynoing at 160 something.

    I respect ducati for what they've done and the name and reputation they've built, it's just the myth that mostly all the "non-riders" keep alive after it dies...

    It's like riders are the japanese with all the cool electronic toys and the non riders are the americans that don't get the gadgets until later on and are still raving over them while the riders have moved on to the next latest and greatest...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •